Judgement

JUDGMENT:- Defendants 1 and 4 to 8 are in appeal against the decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack in a suit for partition.

2. The genealogy given below shows the relationship of parties inter se:-

Plaintiffs are daughters of Panu. They claimed one anna share in the B Schedule properties on the footing that they constituted joint family assets and four annas share in the C Schedule properties on the basis that those properties were self-acquired assets of Panu and Sidhu. The extent of B Schedule property is 4.60 acres while that of C Schedule property is Ac. 10.29.4.

3. Defendants 1 and 4 to 8 (5 to 8 being transferees from defendant No. 4) resisted plaintiffs claim on the stand that Panu died in the year 1955 and not in 1958 as alleged by the plaintiffs, the C Schedule properties were joint family properties and, therefore, plaintiffs would have the same share as they claim in B Schedule properties and would not be entitled to any enhanced share and defendants 2 and 3 had colluded with the plaintiffs and set up the plaintiffs to deprive defendant No. 4 of her legitimate share.

4. The trial court found that (i) Panu died in 1958 as alleged by the plain